More Democrats Turn on Obama

The Declaration of Independence, which you quote, is not the Constitution and does not carry the weight of law. Of course many of the framers were religious, they wrote a lot about religion, hell, for all I know some of them also wrote nasty limerics, but nothing they wrote carries the weight of law except the Constitution. And there, they left religion where it's supposed to be, out of the federal government.

Nobody cares what you believe vis a vie religion. My point is that hollier than thou do gooders who use the federal government to deprive citizens of liberty for things they think are "immoral" are in no way different than the socialists like Obama. You want to control who marries who, what people eat, drink or smoke, they want to force the whole "brother's keeper" angle by wealth redistribution. Peas in a fucking pod.

Every one of the so called "social issues" existed when the Constitution was written, drugs, abortion, homosexuality etc., yet not a single one is mentioned. Therefore, since the document excludes all rights of the federal government not specifically granted to it, none of this shit is any of the federal government's business.

Remember that "civilian security force" Obama wanted? The socons had already created it, all he had to do was re-task it. DEA and ATF are nothing short of para military thugs ready to do whatever the guy signing the check says. The socons created this mess with a combined budget in excess of $3B. And nothing they do, not one damned thing is covered by the Constitution.

Amen. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

ONCE YOU SAY LAWS AGAINST MURDER ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SOCIETY, THEN YOU ALREADY LOST THE ARGUMENT.........

STUDIES WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT PROSTITUTION IS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY.....I AGREE WITH PROSTITUTION LAWS.....OF COURSE, I MAY FACE CONSEQUENCES.....SUCH IS LIFE....I'M NOT GONNA WHINE AND CRY THAT MY BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE DEFINED AS THE NORM AND THUS LEGALIZED.......

So,
Now that we've established that you want the Constitution upheld as you wish it was written, rather than how it was written, you also want to reply to what you wish I had posted rather than what I posted.

In keeping with my observation, additionally confirmed by your persistent name calling and yelling, that you are no different than the leftists you attack, I am adding you to my ignore list where I keep all of them.

I will suffer you no more.

So,
Now that we've established that you want the Constitution upheld as you wish it was written, rather than how it was written, you also want to reply to what you wish I had posted rather than what I posted.

In keeping with my observation, additionally confirmed by your persistent name calling and yelling, that you are no different than the leftists you attack, I am adding you to my ignore list where I keep all of them.

I will suffer you no more. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

FEDERAL AND STATE/LOCAL ARE 2 SEPARATE ISSUES....NES PA?

LIBERTARIANS ONLY CARE ABOUT FEDERAL ISSUES? THEY DON'T MIND LOCAL PROSTITUTION LAWS?

WHAT ABOUT RECOGNITION OF OTHER STATE'S MARRIAGES AND THE LIKE? LIBERTARIANS DON'T THINK THERE CAN BE FEDERAL ISSUES?

Do you wish the demise of the political system or the USA in Toto Originally Posted by ekim008

It depends on how you define political system. If it is the two party system, yes. If it is the crony capitalism, yes. If it is the justice system built on ideology rather than law, yes.

Our response to Ben Franklin when asked what kind of government have you given us, said "A republic, if you can keep it," at this point is "Sorry Ben, we failed. We have bastardized the beautiful republic you gave us."

I would like to get back to Franklin's vision of America.

The only things wrong with the Constitution were not the areas where government control was limited, it was the areas where freedom remained limited, as with the rights of people of color and women. We have expanded the rights of liberty in those areas where the Constitution was lacking.

The other areas of the Constitution which have been amended and/or reinterpreted to be expansions of government authority at the expense of liberty are wrong, unpatriotic and open the door to tyranny.

Ben Franklin would be too busy playing angry birds on his Ipad.

if our founding fathers were here they would all bitch slap us for taking their best efforts 200+ years ago as Bible.

ONCE YOU SAY LAWS AGAINST MURDER ARE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SOCIETY, THEN YOU ALREADY LOST THE ARGUMENT.........

STUDIES WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT PROSTITUTION IS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY.....I AGREE WITH PROSTITUTION LAWS.....OF COURSE, I MAY FACE CONSEQUENCES.....SUCH IS LIFE....I'M NOT GONNA WHINE AND CRY THAT MY BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE DEFINED AS THE NORM AND THUS LEGALIZED....... Originally Posted by Marshall

Arshole, are you saying only normal behavior should be legal? Are you serious? Please say you're an imposter!

Of course murder, robbery, rape, drunk driving and the like should be illegal. Those activities tend to harm someone's life, liberty or property by force or fraud. It is well within Libertarian philosophy to regulate those activities. Prostitution does not fall into that category, because, so long as the prostitute is engaging in the profession voluntarily, no one's life, liberty or property is being denied by force or fraud. The same goes to many other activities which are currently illegal.

And as far as your earlier post, what did Reagan accomplish? He did some good, like most Presidents, but overall he only slowed the march toward tyranny. He started the trend toward out of control budgets, which he could have vetoed but didn't. He didn't close a single agency. Not even a bureau. He "reformed" the tax code by eliminating loopholes and lowering rates, but he allowed for the loopholes to return knowing the rates would be much harder to raise. Reagan mouthed the words that government is the problem, but government still expanded under his administration.

You need to quit listening to talk radio and believing what they tell you.

Ben Franklin would be too busy playing angry birds on his Ipad.

if our founding fathers were here they would all bitch slap us for taking their best efforts 200+ years ago as Bible. Originally Posted by budman33

Yeah, they would love what we have made of their country.

Note that the article cites Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen. Caddell left the Democratic Party in a big huff in the mid to late 1980's and went to work for a Republican polling firm who then ran him off shortly thereafter. Schoen is a notorious centrist Democrat/Independent/DLC type whose biggest client right not is former Republican billionaire Mike Bloomberg. None of this is Democrats turning on Obama.

That being said, there are certainly a large number of liberal Democrats, like me, who would turn on him if offered the chance. The centrist ones not so much.

...Schoen is a notorious centrist Democrat/Independent/DLC type... Originally Posted by TexTushHog

In what sort of upside-down world is someone considered "notorious" if he is a "centrist" or an independent?

Bill Clinton was obviously the most successful Democrat of the last several decades, and he owes his success to the fact that he moved toward the center after a politically unsuccessful first two years. He cooperated with a conservative congress to restrain the growth of government spending to one of the lowest rates in modern history. In fact, during the period 1995-2000, federal spending fell (as a percentage of GDP) by about three percentage points.

Yes, he enjoyed the benefit of a productivity and technology boom. But still, bad decisions (such as many of those made by his two successors) could easily have fucked that up.

Clinton, like Reagan, also presided over a strong-dollar Treasury Department. In that regard, he was the opposite of Nixon, Carter, G. W. Bush, and Obama. In the late '90s, gold was well under $300/oz. and oil prices were in the teens. Inflation in the prices of food commodities was similarly subdued.

It is no accident that all these factors combined to produce a period of economic prosperity.

More recently, government spending has risen by several percentage points of GDP, and this level of spending is apparently well-entrenched. It doesn't seem politically possible to cut it to any appreciable degree. This is a burden with which our struggling economy will have to deal for years.

But I guess it is an upside-down world when the Pope is German and the president of the European Central Bank is Italian!

Clinton, like Reagan, also presided over a strong-dollar Treasury Department. In that regard, he was the opposite of Nixon, Carter, G. W. Bush, and Obama. In the late '90s, gold was well under $300/oz. and oil prices were in the teens. Inflation in the prices of food commodities was similarly subdued.

It is no accident that all these factors combined to produce a period of economic prosperity.


! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

People do not realize that cheap oil is the engine that really runs this country

But I guess it is an upside-down world when the Pope is German and the president of the European Central Bank is Italian! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight